Two-state advocates are on the defensive in debate on Capitol Hill

In a historic debate over the two-state solution on Capitol Hill this morning, advocates for the two-state solution were put on the defensive in ways that surely reflect a shift in the mainstream thinking about the peace process.

Leading the attack on the two-state paradigm, Ian Lustick, author of a recent New York Times piece called “Two State Illusion,” argued that while the two-state solution is theoretically possible, it is at this point highly implausible and not worth our government’s time to pursue.

Dragging out a meaningless peace process only serves Israel’s rightwing government. “They’re using this tantalizing mirage in order to justify the tightening grip… of the occupation,” Lustick said at the forum organized by the Middle East Policy Council at the Washington Court Hotel (the original venue, a House building, was unavailable due to the shutdown).

The Israeli right only pretends that it cares about a Palestinian state, Lustick said, scorning statements by Benjamin Netanyahu in his recent Bar-Ilan speech and by a rightwing Likud member, Tzachi Hanegbi, at the J Street conference. Lustick says he knows Hanegbi from his own days in Israel. “I know what makes this guy tick.”

Then he challenged Jeremy Ben-Ami, the executive director of J Street, to consider the possibility that Hanegbi and others in the the right wing are “using you” to advance their maximalist and oppressive policies in the West Bank.

“Jeremy you have to be aware of the possibility that you’re being played.”

For his part, Ben-Ami said that there is no alternative to the two-state solution. It would resolve a battle between two groups with legitimate rights to the same land. The idea of sharing that land is implausible, he said– given the needs of Jews for a Jewish state and given the sectarian landscape of the Middle East, in which Coptic Christians in Egypt experience persecution. A one-state outcome, “Isra-stine,” will only lead to endless bloodshed. The two sides would come much later, and at huge cost, to a conclusion that the world has reached now: partitioning the land.

Ahmad Samih Khalidi of Oxford University also referred to the violence in the Middle East as an argument for the two-state solution. But he admitted that the next generation of Palestinian intellectuals regards the two state solution as a “Zionist solution.” The two state solution once answered Palestinian nationalist dreams, he said, but today “the vast majority of young people have gone almost completely into one-state-ism.”

The livestream from the Middle East Policy Council was intermittent, but Yousef Munayyer of the Palestine Center also spoke and reflected these generational Palestinian ideas. He said that Israel has been an apartheid state since 1948, because of its treatment of Palestinian refugees who were not allowed to return to their homes after the war over Israel’s independence.

Ben-Ami took sharp exception to the statement. He said that he believes that Israel will become an apartheid state if it fails to disgorge the occupied territories. But citing his own Zionist parents and the dreams of European Jews to escape oppression in the Middle East, he said, “Israel must be a state rooted in justice.” So it must eschew apartheid; and what was made by human beings can be unmade; settlers can be moved.

Lustick said by that logic, Israel also was made by human beings, and it can be unmade. But that likelihood is as implausible as the likelihood that the settlers will be removed from the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

And after Ben-Ami declared that he will never give up on the two-state solution, Lustick said that he is paving the way to “permanent occupation.”

Munayyer also addressed the theme of permanent occupation. One of the great deceptions of our political leaders is the oft-repeated claim that the status quo is unsustainable. In fact, occupation has been sustained for a very long time. And all the actions by the U.S. government serve to sustain that occupation. Our leaders do nothing to pressure Israel to change.

Ben-Ami said that political pressure is beginning. One of J Street’s greatest moments was urging the US government not to veto a UN Security Council resolution against settlements– which the US government did veto, bowing to the official Jewish community. J Street was attacked for its stance, but Ben-Ami said that recent polling shows that American Jews are against settlements, overwhelmingly, and the mainstream Jewish organizations are “out of step” with their own public.

Lustick suggested this shift was meaningless. Cuba and Israel are the “third rails” in US politics. The president’s domestic advisers tell him that his entire political agenda is at risk if he touches one of those rails. And so the president says what it is safe to say, and says the two-state solution is alive when it’s dead.

He implied that the president’s foreign policy advisers are charting a different course. The US is quietly supporting European efforts to condemn Israeli actions over the Green Line. Thus the US will be embroiled in an international campaign that will push Israel into “pariah state” status.

Update: This post originally said that 600-700,000 settlers could be moved. I’m told I misheard, that Ben-Ami spoke of 100,000; but I’ll await clarification, and correct later.

About Philip Weiss

Posted In:

42 Responses

“Ben-Ami took sharp exception to the statement [that Israel is an apartheid state]. He said that he believes that Israel will become an apartheid state if it fails to disgorge the occupied territories. … So it must eschew apartheid; and what was made by human beings can be unmade; 600-700,000 settlers can be moved.”

So, by this reasoning, as long as the settlements can be removed, which Ben-Ami maintains can always happen at anytime, then Israel is not actually an apartheid state. It follows that Israel can never be regarded as an apartheid state, regardless of the actual existing apartheid situation on the ground.

Israel can continue to expand the settlements, build more Jewish-only roads, evict Palestinians at will, take their water, and confine them to smaller and smaller enclaves. Yet, so long as it voices some vague hope of finding a two-state accommodation through a never-ending ‘peace process’, ispo facto, it is not an apartheid state.

Ben-Ami took sharp exception to the statement [that Israel is an apartheid state]. He said that he believes that Israel will become an apartheid state if it fails to disgorge the occupied territories. … So it must eschew apartheid; and what was made by human beings can be unmade; 600-700,000 settlers can be moved.

Yes this is a bizarre statement isn’t it? If Israel will become an apartheid state if it fails to disgorge the occupied territories, when what is it while it refuses to disgorge the occupied territories? This is just a fraud perpetrated by the likes of Ben-Ami to argue that Israel is not an apartheid state by pretending the apartheid situation is temporary – even though it has lasted almost as long as apartheid did in South Africa.

Greetings Patrick,
Both Tweedledee & Tweedledum are wackos.
Regarless of how many States appear, who will have all the Marbels (Military)?
Zionistan!
We remember the Balkons.
In the 6thC AD Slavic tribes began moving upwarldly from the south west pushing the Albanian tribes further to the east, who were Catholics! By 12C AD the Serbs had all the land. The Albanian Catholics sought help from the Sarazen Muslims & converted to Islam!
As long as the Vassal of the imperial US Agenda remains profitable, Zionistan will keep the hegemony over Falesteena!
ziusudra

>> For his part, Ben-Ami said that there is no alternative to the two-state solution. It would resolve a battle between two groups with legitimate rights to the same land.

People who were born or living in, or who were refugees or ex-pats from, the geographic region of Mandate Palestine leading up to the time of Partition have a legitimate right to the land in which they were born or living, or from which they were refugees or ex-pats.

People who happen to be Jewish, living in countries around the world, have no legitimate right to land in the geographic region that was Mandate Palestine.

>> … given the needs of Jews for a Jewish state …

Some (many? most?) Jews had and have a desire, not a need, for a supremacist “Jewish State”.

>> … Yousef Munayyer … said that Israel has been an apartheid state since 1948 … Ben-Ami took sharp exception to the statement. He said that he believes that Israel will become an apartheid state if it fails to disgorge the occupied territories.

“Right now,” he added, “it’s just a supremacist ‘Jewish State’ and, quite frankly, that’s how I’d like it to remain.”

The American Nakbas resulted in a durable peace as long as the natives were isolated from External support, so too Israeli occupation and expansion is entirely sustainable as long as the Arab neighbors quarantine any resistance; hence the need for chronic hegemonic threats against the regional actors, and repression of the democratic will:

People who were born or living in, or who were refugees or ex-pats from, the geographic region of Mandate Palestine leading up to the time of Partition have a legitimate right to the land in which they were born or living, or from which they were refugees or ex-pats.

That assertion is debatable.

People who happen to be Jewish, living in countries around the world, have no legitimate right to land in the geographic region that was Mandate Palestine.

Your statement is nonsense. But let’s indulge for a second. What is the basis for the claim that some person, born last year in Northern New Jersey, say, has any right to land in Palestine, simply because his mother is Jewish? What “history” provides this “right”??

That said, I’m not going to play your game. You’d prefer to pointlessly entertain people in this type of argument till the end of time, because you can avoid discussions about how to move forward in a single state whose laws and practice aim to espouse principles of liberty, equality, and opportunity for all.

Phil: I was actually there in person today, and yeah, you misheard; both Munayyer and Ben-Ami spoke of a minimum of 100,000 settlers being removed, not the full 600k+.

Also, and I think this is important, I was actually a bit surprised to hear Ben-Ami actually say that he thinks that this round of peace talks under Secretary Kerry is the LAST round wherein a 2-state solution is possible. He quickly added after that that he thought that there may be a years-long impasse and people may eventually return to talk of a 2-state solution later on, but it was as close as I’ve come to hearing a committed liberal Zionist basically say that 12-18 months is basically the end of the road for the “Jewish and democratic” dream. It was perhaps the only concession Ben-Ami made in the course of the discussion, and I think a large part of the audience, like me, thinks he sounded downright delusional next to the cold analysis of Munayyar and Lustick.

Oh, another bit that was news to me: Ben-Ami mentioned that his family were among the first Russian settlers in Palestine in the late 1800s and that his very own father was in the Irgun. How crazy is that?

” Apartheid” is much to mild a term for the way the Zionists have treated the Palestinians and the land of Palestine as asserted many times by leaders of the South African freedom movement. And to ascertain some religious mandate and the Holocaust for justification to the destruction of the land of Palestine and its inhabitants lives , culture and history is obscene if one believes in a just God.

Munayyer also addressed the theme of permanent occupation. One of the great deceptions of our political leaders is the oft-repeated claim that the status quo is unsustainable. In fact, occupation has been sustained for a very long time. And all the actions by the U.S. government serve to sustain that occupation.

Surprisingly true. Admit the reality of full domination and address it.

Lustick suggested this shift was meaningless. Cuba and Israel are the “third rails” in US politics. The president’s domestic advisers tell him that his entire political agenda is at risk if he touches one of those rails.

True. A mainstream pastor today mentioned to his lay group that occasionally discusses this topic that another minister asked him to serve at her church recently, but the inviting minister placed a requirement that he could not mention Palestine. The requirement was because earlier a lady had threatened to leave that church because someone else had openly talked about the oppression in the Holy Land, and the lady’s husband was Jewish.

In other words, the topic is a third rail no one can touch in a big church because of one person’s threat to leave the church over it, while the rest of the people do not really care enough to upset her.

Is it possible that the religious Hareedim, with their opposition to nationalism, war, conscription, are the way out for Israel , an escape from the violence of the secular ethno-nationalists in Israel and in the USA? Possibly, Im struck by the hatred of the secularists, liberal and nationalist, for the Haredim, as one reader was at Open Zion:

Attending Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s Funeral as a Secular Jewish Woman

[commenter] Contentious 1 hour ago

This sounds like someone terribly bored would write. Bored people are usually also very boring. Was there a point to this article other than to exchange knowing glances with your friends across the ocean? Will you look at all those Sephardic, Mizrahi yahoos? Aren’t they just quaint? Gee, if nobody was paying the least bit of attention to me and my tights or “torso” (such humour!), then I’ll just mention them anyway. Readers ought to know that I’m not like them. I belong to civilized people. And in the absence of any histrionics, why not just mention how Surprising that was, considering who these people are.

For his part, Ben-Ami said that there is no alternative to the two-state solution. It would resolve a battle between two groups with legitimate rights to the same land. The idea of sharing that land is implausible, he said– given the needs of Jews for a Jewish state and given the sectarian landscape of the Middle East, in which Coptic Christians in Egypt experience persecution.

That whole statement is littered with non-sequiturs. There is no “need” for a Jewish state, and even if there was, it can’t be established on territory claimed by others without their consent. It goes without saying that J-Street has never advocated the illogical proposition that it is necessary for the Egyptians to adopt a two state solution and cede significant amounts of their shared territory in order to end the persecution of their Coptic minority.

The obvious alternative solution when two groups have legitimate claims to the same land is a single state. It doesn’t arbitrarily or artificially exclude or subjugate the members of either group on the basis of nationality and can guarantee both complete equality and non-discrimination under the law. If Zionists aren’t willing to accept that approach and live in peace with other indigenous groups, then they still aren’t fit to govern themselves or anyone else and truly do need tutelage “until they are able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world”.

The two state solution was non-viable from the moment that the UN Security Council determined it could not be implemented without resorting to the use of force in violation of the UN Charter. The General Assembly and ICJ subsequently prohibited unilateral secessions and fratricidal wars of independence between groups in non-self-governing territories, like the one which established the State of Israel. The Courts applied the legal principle of uti possidetis in cases like the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali). The General Assembly declared that:

“Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

Trying to limit participation in a State polity on the basis race or ethnicity is a violation of Article 1 of the UN Charter. The existing state policies and practices of Israel have been censured by the treaty monitoring bodies as flagrant examples of racial discrimination, apartheid, and segregation that are aimed at systematically creating distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which have the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms by non-Jews in the political, economic, social, cultural and other fields of public life.

All of those acts are prohibited under the terms of the Charter and the UN Human rights conventions. How on Earth can we ask the Palestinians to codify an illegal situation like that, which would render any so-called final treaty agreement legally null and void from the very outset?

When Israel walks away from the United Nations, it walks away with “Every Slice Of Land” it “Owns/Controls and that is why there is such a huge rush to change the facts on the ground.

I think that the U.S. is gonna walk away from the United Nations within the next 10 years, and it will be NATO which will be then utilized.

As China gains more influence within the world, the less support America will give the United Nations.

In June 2006, Kofi Annan accused the United States of undermining the United Nations. It has recently been shown that every room at the United Nations has been wiretapped by the NSA.

NATO has no obligation to consider global interests, nor does it allow non-members to participate in its decision-making.

There are two main tasks which must be completed prior to walkin’ away.

At the moment, Europe is dependent upon Russia for it’s gas and this must change. At the moment, there are huge military battles being fought throughout the Middle East and a race towards Western owned pipelines via finance and construction.

Israel must become a full member of NATO prior walking away from the United Nations. Israel will find it continuously difficult to ignore U.N. resolutions against the Jewish State and when push comes to shove, Israel will walk away from the U.N.. The race is on for Israel to complete the creation of “Facts On The Ground” with settlements. Because what the facts are at the moment Israel walks away from the UN, are the facts of international law and where Possession is 9/10ths of the Law.

NATO and Israel have been holding joint military exercises since 2004.

Israel and NATO became “Partners” in the fight against terror on March 07, 2013. The Israel-NATO Brussels protocol obligates NATO to come to the rescue of Israel under the doctrine of collective security, were the security of Israel to be threatened. Prior to this agreement, Israel was operating under the [NATO] Mediterranean Dialogue (Observer status), which was created in 1994.

And one final point …. Israel must also “Change The Facts On The Ground” as per Gaza. At the moment, Israel has no “Land Coast” …. Without the Lands of Gaza, Israel has no rights to gas deposits off the coast and thus complicates further interests within the Mediterranean Sea. (Greece/Cyprus as an example.)

Okay, I agree you see things differently. I’ve long since noted that both the US and Israel have rejected the 1ss and 2ss in favor of the status quo of apartheid. I think (from first hand experience) that the wheels will fall off NATO before the US considers giving up its veto in the UN Security Council. That approach would likely end in economic sanctions and one of those Security Council-initiated special criminal tribunals to end our meddling, threats, and perpetual wars.

In any event, the proposed NATO allies in the EU are distancing themselves from the Israeli settlements and moving towards a sanctions regime.

CALM- “Israel and NATO became “Partners” in the fight against terror on March 07, 2013. The Israel-NATO Brussels protocol obligates NATO to come to the rescue of Israel under the doctrine of collective security, were the security of Israel to be threatened. Prior to this agreement, Israel was operating under the [NATO] Mediterranean Dialogue (Observer status), which was created in 1994.”

Well, I am glad to see at least one other Mondoweiss commenter aware of the expansion of NATO and how it could influence imperial policy. It was Clinton during the assault on Yugoslavia who transformed NATO into an imperial out-of-area strike force, empire’s foreign legion. According to Rick Rozoff:

As for your contention that “I think that the U.S. is gonna walk away from the United Nations within the next 10 years, and it will be NATO which will be then utilized.”, it depends upon what you mean by “walk away from.” The empire will undoubtedly rely more on NATO to implement its military assaults on other countries, however, I can’t see the US quitting the UN for a variety of reasons, not the least of which its ability to stifle UN effectiveness as a voice for Russia, China and the rest of the Third World. Much of what the US is currently doing is intended to keep Russia and China in their place, and prevent a Russia-Iran-China alliance which could conceivably upset the current alignment of geo-political forces. Abandon the UN to Russia, China, et al? I seriously doubt that.

@ Mike_Konrad //People who were born or living in, or who were refugees or ex-pats from, the geographic region of Mandate Palestine leading up to the time of Partition have a legitimate right to the land in which they were born or living, or from which they were refugees or ex-pats//

//People who happen to be Jewish, living in countries around the world, have no legitimate right to land in the geographic region that was Mandate Palestine//

“That assertion is an ahistorical lie”

Strange … Jewish immigrants to what is even now LEGALLY recognized as Israel and wanting to own land ….. have to buy it!
I could never figure that one out.

Jewish people and in fact ANYONE else who wants to live in territory outside the State of Israel’s actual legal sovereign extent, must seek citizenship in the respective state unless of course they’re willing to break International Law and become an illegal settler.

It has long been obvious that Israel wants neither a one state nor a two state solution and thus all that remains is no state which is, surely, the present situation not its solution. I fail to understand why no one proposes one state with an autonomous region for those Jews who find it distressing to live with others or feel they need somewhere to preserve the integrity of their religious convictions, a region guaranteed and protected under international law. That way they could exclude whoever they like while not being excluded themselves. A bit like your own bedroom in a family home. The sad thing about the present impasse is it keeps people apart thus preventing the personal contacts that are necessary to open both sides’ eyes to their common humanity.

“…For years and years everybody thought that without the Right of Return the Palestinians will never, never do anything. And then Abu Mazen six months ago or eight months ago sits on an interview on Israel’s Channel 2 — not BBC, not Charlie Rose — but Israel’s Channel 2 and says, ‘I understand now that I will never go back to my home in Safad,’ which is Israel, mainland Israel. So what happened? What happened was the Palestinians realized there is a total consensus against the Right of Return, and if they really want to have a state, they will have to give up on this. It’s the same about Jerusalem. The question is, do the Palestinians want their own state?”

Does this genius realize that even the US government does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over one inch of Jerusalem — East or West.

The United Nations was deliberately set up by the U.S. in order to facilitate its grasp of power after World War II.

The United Nations will be a useless fart in the wind when the U.S. quits sending the United Nations money and just simply walks away. Do you think that China is gonna finance the United Nations when it’s headquarters are in New York and every diplomatic conversation is over heard by the NSA?

Once the U.S. pulls it’s funding, the United Nations will crumble under its own weight.

And as it is, everything Israel has done since 1948 is totally legal ….. once it walks away from the United Nations.

And who is gonna argue? Who has the “International Power” to force implementation of any decisions made by a discarded United Nations?

The world “The Globalized World” will have 2 reigns of power. Russia/China axis and the U.S. Capitalist axis.

For the past 75 years, the world has “Speculated” that Israel will soon adhere to the decision of the International Courts.

Now you are really displaying your ignorance. The issue was never referred to a Court until 2003, despite repeated requests on the record from several Arab and non-Arab states, like Colombia, during the ad hoc committee hearings on the partition plan and Security Council hearings on Israel’s annexations and wars of aggression. This has never been anything other than pure power politics. The threat posed by the new international criminal tribunal established through the General Assembly has been the only thing that has threatened the status quo and endless talks.

All the parties have constantly paid lip service to international law everywhere, except for the one place where it really counts, inside the Chambers in the Hague.

The other reason they joined the UN was to gain official recognition and be able to selectively hide behind the protections of the UN charter while systematically violating them.

The declaration and establishment of “independent or provisional governments in Transjordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria had not effected their mandated status. It was agreed among the members of the League and UN that the mandates, integral trade agreements, and suspension of the Capitulations would only be considered terminated when the mandated States became full members of the League or the UN. So, nothing would have prevented the UN from placing the “independent” or “provisional governments” of the Jewish and Arab states under a UN trusteeship in line with the US proposal.

But Article 78 of the UN Charter stipulated that:

The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality.

Resolution 181(II) required the new states to supply a signed declaration of fundamental law guaranteeing minority rights as a pre-condition to any application for membership. Israel simply published its signed Declaration in the national gazette and lied about its legal status in order to obtain its membership:

F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

The United Nations was deliberately set up by the U.S. in order to facilitate its grasp of power after World War II.

Correction it was setup to give the P-5 veto power over other countries foreign policy decisions. The other members, including Japan and the BRICS can makeup any funding loss from the US, we pay more because its a forum used to advance US foreign policy.

FYI, once the Security Council authored the criminal statutes and set-up the international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda as its own subordinate organs there was no longer any pretense that it isn’t the World’s government when push comes to shove. There’s no possibility at all of the US withdrawing and going its own way safely or unscathed. The only thing keeping US officials out of the dock in the Hague right now is the US veto in the Security Council.

The United Nations will be a useless fart in the wind when the U.S. quits sending the United Nations money and just simply walks away. Do you think that China is gonna finance the United Nations when it’s headquarters are in New York and every diplomatic conversation is over heard by the NSA?

A great deal of everyday UN business has always been conducted in Geneva, the Hague, and other UN facilities around the globe. The headquarters can obviously be relocated to another country.

I made a mistake referring to “International Law” and should of used the term “International Opinion”.

When the oil/gas pipelines servicing the European Union have all been completed, and when Europe is no longer dependent upon Russian natural gas and oil, that is when the U.S. walks away. The minute this “split” happens, is the very moment in time that the world becomes a 2-axis community and not an international community. The pipeline routes through Syria or Turkey or Pakistan must be decided first. I will take another 5 years after securing the pipeline route for the pipelines to be built.

There is one huge problem right now with Bahrain and the U.S. may lose its shipping port located there. Thus making the gas/oil pipelines more necessary.

I think that the next move (leave UN) by Israel is quite plain.

And, what I am trying to explain is that “Negotiations” is a stalling tactic and that when push comes to shove, Israel will just ignore any United Nations resolutions which would be critical of Israel and the Facts On The Ground.

In fact, Israel has made or stated this point many times.

This is why I have little patience for the opinion that negotiations will bring about a 2 State Solution. If there was any real push or threat against Israel by the United Nations and for Israel to return to the 1967 borders, Israel will just leave the U.N..

Negotiations are a complete joke. A dream. Whenever Israel would lose an important case against them, they will just walk away and claim that the facts on the ground are “Legal” and then dare any other country to do anything about it.

Israel will threaten to bomb any foe back to the dark ages just as the U.S. told the government in Pakistan in 2001. (You are either with us or against us routine.)

From recent events, it appears to me that when Saudi Arabia talks about closer ties to Israel, what it really means is that Saudi Arabia is going to be a member of NATO.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.